Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Of Course Jesus Existed

Posted on: December 9, 2007 - 2:06am

Euthymius

Posts: 20

Joined: 2007-11-22

Offline

Of Course Jesus Existed

Note: I am not a theologian or scholar. I am a simple layman. The below is a reflection of my own opinion, having studied this subject and engaged in several debates. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect any official position of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church cannot be held responsible or liable for any errors I might make. The below thesis is simply my own observation, but I believe there is truth to it.

MY ARGUMENT

I am a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. I do not wish to partake in this debate, because by doing so I would be stooping to your level and implying you have a case. You don't. Atheists do not even have the right or authority to even question the historical Christ. I just have a few words.

The rise of the "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) is a direct result of the errors of the Protestant theology of the 16th century. It was from liberal Protestantism that the "mythicist" theory begun.

By rejecting the authority and ontological existence and reality of the Orthodox Church, Protestantism reduced Christianity to a mere "philosophy," and Christ to just another sage or teacher. This was not intentional, but it was a direct result of their anti-Church stance.

The New Testament is one of the greatest proofs of Jesus, as is the existential and empirical reality of the Orthodox Church (which Christ founded). But Protestantism rejected the Church (which is the other greatest proof), and relegated Christ to nothing but the testimony of the New Testament. The New Testament AND the Orthodox Church, comprise the two wings of authority of authentic Christianity. It takes two wings to fly. Protestants rejected the other wing (the Church Christ founded), and thereby damaged Christian authority and the message of authentic Christianity. By rejecting the Church, they made Christianity (and Christ) susceptible to attack. The rejection of the Orthodox Church left Christianity with holes, open to attack.

The protestants were desperate to garner other "evidences" for Jesus, so they amassed a great deal of "extra-biblical" sources in corroboration with the New Testament (Roman sources, Gnostic, Patristic, Jewish, etc), in order to support the historical Jesus. But since they rejected the validity of the Orthodox Church, which Christ personally established, they were rejecting the greatest proof there is for His existence.

The Orthodox Church was founded by Christ. No historical person has ever founded such an institution; especially one that has lasted and survived through every conceivable onslaught for 2,000 years.

The scientific anthropic principle states that, in its initial conditions, the universe was fine-tuned for the existence and sustenance of life.

There is an anthropic truth with the Orthodox Church. It was fine-tuned by the God-Man (Christ) for the existence of spiritual life. The existence of our many millions of saints (which the west is generally ignorant of), is proof that the Church is a Divine institution. It sanctifies and deifies souls. The Orthodox Church maintains, to this day, direct apostolic (or bishop) succession that goes all the way back to Christ. There is an ancient "rule of faith" (regula fidei) that guarantees the truth about Christ and authentic Christianity. Irenaeus (he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John) states that this "regula fidei" is where correct doctrine (orthodoxy) and bishop succession (the laying on of hands) exists.

WE STILL HAVE THIS IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH TODAY

In Summary and Conclusion,

Protestantism rejected the actual Church that Christ personally founded.

The "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) came from liberal Protestantism.

By rejecting this Church, Protestantism demoted Christ (though not intentionally) to the level of other sages and teachers; robbing him of His special uniqueness, and making Him vulnerable to attack.

I would say the greatest proofs of Jesus Christ are:

1. The Orthodox Church which He personally founded.

2. Apostolic Succession and the rule of faith (regula fedei).

3. The anthropic spirituality (fine-tuning) within the Orthodox Church that has produced countless saints.

4. The New Testament documents.

5. All the other extra-biblical data.

6. The collective cultural memory and tradition that has been handed down of the original divine knowledge (this is also contained within the authority of the Orthodox Church, apostolic succession and the rule of faith).

The fifth is not what we base the historical Christ on. It is simply what we would expect to find.

The fallacy of the modern "mythicists" and Protestants is that they approached this subject using the inductive method of historical investigation. They investigated this subject backwards. They used the New Testament and the extra-biblical material as if those things alone comprise the totality of the evidence for Christ. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IS THE GREATEST PROOF

CHURCH FATHERS

There are about 500 volumes of writings and teachings of the Church Fathers in Armenian, Coptic and Syriac. Here are the primary (not secondary) source material in Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, Greek and Latin. If you want to learn and hear what true Christianity is from the best sources, learn these languages and read this material in the original languages.

The Code of Justinian, edited in Berlin in the Corpus Iuris Civilis, as well as certain supplemental laws known in Latin as Novellae

English: Anti-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (38 volumes)

INTRODUCTION TO CHURCH HISTORY

The Christian Tradition (five volumes), by Jaroslav Pelikan (recipient of the John Kluge Award and 42 honorary doctorates. Considered the worlds leading expert on Christian history).

There are many what are called "Jesus historians" today who affirm Jesus existed. In fact, no one who is a recognized "Jesus historian"today denies He existed. I have a list and several quotes and sources by them. But they are really insignificant compared to the Church Fathers. None of these "Jesus historians" have the real authority the Church Fathers have. Read the Church Fathers.

Don't read modern day atheists who are 2,000 years too late and have no authority. Read Saints Maxmus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, Theodore the Studite, John Chrystotom, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, etc. Read Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus (Aganist Heresies). These holy men had direct mystical contact with the risen Christ.

"Both claims are false. Science has proven that something can come from nothing. An effect can happen without a cause."

I couldn't help but notice that comment. Can you give me a scientific example of something coming from nothing?

When studying quantum mechanics, scientists have observed particles coming out of nowhere without an apparent reason. Also, there's a theory about virtual particles that are created randomly throughout space. From what I understand, virtual particles are a particle/ anti-particle pair that come into existence without a reason, move for a while, collide and get destroyed. The energy the particles contained are returned to whatever oblivion it came out of. However, I'm not sure what observation this is based on.

When speaking about the creation event of the universe (big bang) the universe came into existence from nothing, without a cause because of a quantum mechanical phenomena called "quantum tunneling". I have no idea what it is, but this theory is consistent with the current scientific theories.

I have studied physics for about five years, but I have never had a course about quantum mechanics, so I have much to learn.

Alberto wrote:

Are you even familiar with the law of causality? Are you even familiar with the rules of evidence? And are you even familiar with what is generally described as common sense?

Law of causality? I think so... Unless there's some sort of bizarre rule I have never heard of. Rules of evidence? Uhh... Yeah... I have studied the scientific method alot on my freetime. Common sense? You see, quantum mechanics makes no sense at all. The laws of the subatomic realm have little resemblance with this world.

On a side note, I have heard that quantum mechanics is one of the most proven scientific theories ever. Some everyday electronic devices have been created with the help quantum mechanical theories. But I have to do some more studying on this.

"Both claims are false. Science has proven that something can come from nothing. An effect can happen without a cause."

I couldn't help but notice that comment. Can you give me a scientific example of something coming from nothing?

When studying quantum mechanics, scientists have observed particles coming out of nowhere without an apparent reason. Also, there's a theory about virtual particles that are created randomly throughout space. From what I understand, virtual particles are a particle/ anti-particle pair that come into existence without a reason, move for a while, collide and get destroyed. The energy the particles contained are returned to whatever oblivion it came out of. However, I'm not sure what observation this is based on.

When speaking about the creation event of the universe (big bang) the universe came into existence from nothing, without a cause because of a quantum mechanical phenomena called "quantum tunneling". I have no idea what it is, but this theory is consistent with the current scientific theories.

I have studied physics for about five years, but I have never had a course about quantum mechanics, so I have much to learn.

Alberto wrote:

Are you even familiar with the law of causality? Are you even familiar with the rules of evidence? And are you even familiar with what is generally described as common sense?

Law of causality? I think so... Unless there's some sort of bizarre rule I have never heard of. Rules of evidence? Uhh... Yeah... I have studied the scientific method alot on my freetime. Common sense? You see, quantum mechanics makes no sense at all. The laws of the subatomic realm have little resemblance with this world.

On a side note, I have heard that quantum mechanics is one of the most proven scientific theories ever. Some everyday electronic devices have been created with the help quantum mechanical theories. But I have to do some more studying on this.

The particles exist in the universe. The universe produced the particles. Something cannot come from nothing. Even if those particles are coming from some unknown force, it could be God. But they have to come from something. That's my point. And that's the law of causality. You appeal to "theory." I'm appealing to a law --causality.

The universe did not come from no-thing. That's impossible. Again, the law of causality states an affect must have a cause. Even if that cause is unknown, it still exists. It has to. Something cannot come from nothing.

I believe God makes the most sense because the universe has sign-posts of transcendents, intelligence, order, design and care.

Also, a the atheist cannot answer the question as to why it even exists in the first place.

What chance creates, it instantly anihiliates. The universe is too ordered, structured and fine-tuned to be random and accidental. There has to be an immaterial mind / cause behind it.

The universe did not come from no-thing. That's impossible. Again, the law of causality states an affect must have a cause. Even if that cause is unknown, it still exists. It has to. Something cannot come from nothing.

And yet, you exempt your God from this statement (assuming you believe the Abrahamic theisms).

If you don't, where did your God come from?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

The universe did not come from no-thing. That's impossible. Again, the law of causality states an affect must have a cause. Even if that cause is unknown, it still exists. It has to. Something cannot come from nothing.

And yet, you exempt your God from this statement (assuming you believe the Abrahamic theisms).

If you don't, where did your God come from?

I was just going to write that. I hate it when creationists claim that "the universe was created, therefore God made it". It's retarded logic. Speaking of creationism...

Alberto wrote:

What chance creates, it instantly anihiliates.

Instantly annihilates? Let me show you something very cool:

I'm not sure if this is a real snowflake, but snowflakes do look this complex. They are born in a few seconds from drops of water. I think they are too ordered and structured to be random and accidental. Yet no one has ever argued that God creates all snowflakes. It's the same thing with the universe.

Alberto wrote:

The universe is too ordered, structured and fine-tuned to be random and accidental. There has to be an immaterial mind / cause behind it.

Your argument is the following: The universe is complicated, most complicated things I see have been intelligently designed, therefore the universe has been designed. I don't think it follows the premises. Just look at that snowflake. It's complicated, but not designed.

Also, the universe has not been fine-tuned for life. It would be more correct to say that life has been fine-tuned for the universe. It's impossible to know for sure, but it's not impossible to imagine that life could have born in a universe very different from our own. Molecules critical for life don't need gravity to have been created by "chance". Life could just as well exist in a universe with no gravity. So fine-tuned, my ass.

Yes, the universe was born very randomly. But "chance" has nothing to do with it. Life, universe and everything was not born because of chance, but because of the laws of physics.

I suggest you'll watch the 11 -part "Why do people laugh at creationists" at Youtube. I'ts a very good series of videos, although the first part isn't that good.

I'm not sure if this is a real snowflake, but snowflakes do look this complex. They are born in a few seconds from drops of water. I think they are too ordered and structured to be random and accidental. Yet no one has ever argued that God creates all snowflakes. It's the same thing with the universe.

Ahem, what I meant is that no one has ever argued that snowflakes are designed, but a complicated system such as the universe could just as well be born by the laws of physics. Not by chance and definitely not by "design".

I don't know the mechanism that shows how drops of water freeze into detailed snowflakes. My intuition states that snowflakes were crafted in like 40 hours by some sculptor with a microscope. It's hard to believe they are not designed, but it's true.

Response: We have all of that in the case of Jesus also. There is no reason to believe the apostles were not witnesses of him unless a person assumes beforehand they weren't. John, for example, specifically states he was an eyewitnesses (see 1 John). Luke knew the apostles, gathered data and wrote a gospel and "history" (Luke, Acts). Biblical Archaeologist William F. Albright said Luke was a historian of the highest rank. But I think you and the other individual missed my point. My point was that if historical events demand eyewinesses in order to be true, then this would mean we cannot trust any modern "histories" of the civil war, etc because the historians were not there to observe any of those events. Just because a person writing about said events was not there to observe those events, does not logically imply there is no valid data of said events. That is my point. Even if the apostles were not contemporaries of Christ, it does not mean the writers of the New Testament did not have access to factual data regarding him. In the case of the civil war, etc we have information that has been passed down. No contemporary writer was there to observe any of those events.

There is plenty of reason to doubt that the apostles were witnesses of Jesus. The story of Jesus Christ comes from the gospels, not the apostles who failed to mention anything relating to the traditional life of Jesus aside from his death and resurrection. The first gospel was written at least 35 years after the alleged snuffing of Christ, and possibly much later than that. Luke was a historian of highest rank? WTF? Where are his sources cited, and how does he know what Christ did while he was alone? All the gospels look to me like fables, not historical documents of any kind. The most important thing is that none of these NT books were written within the alleged time of Jesus.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?

"Response: We have all of that in the case of Jesus also. There is no reason to believe the apostles were not witnesses of him unless a person assumes beforehand they weren't. John, for example, specifically states he was an eyewitnesses (see 1 John). Luke knew the apostles, gathered data and wrote a gospel and "history" (Luke, Acts). Biblical Archaeologist William F. Albright said Luke was a historian of the highest rank. But I think you and the other individual missed my point. My point was that if historical events demand eyewinesses in order to be true, then this would mean we cannot trust any modern "histories" of the civil war, etc because the historians were not there to observe any of those events. Just because a person writing about said events was not there to observe those events, does not logically imply there is no valid data of said events. That is my point. Even if the apostles were not contemporaries of Christ, it does not mean the writers of the New Testament did not have access to factual data regarding him. In the case of the civil war, etc we have information that has been passed down. No contemporary writer was there to observe any of those events."

There is plenty of reason to doubt that the apostles were witnesses of Jesus. The story of Jesus Christ comes from the gospels, not the apostles who failed to mention anything relating to the traditional life of Jesus aside from his death and resurrection. The first gospel was written at least 35 years after the alleged snuffing of Christ, and possibly much later than that. Luke was a historian of highest rank? WTF? Where are his sources cited, and how does he know what Christ did while he was alone? All the gospels look to me like fables, not historical documents of any kind. The most important thing is that none of these NT books were written within the alleged time of Jesus.

About 70% of Luke was taken from Mark. If Luke was a historian he was a dishonest, lazy one.

If John was an eyewitness, why did he wait so long to write - I could see 2-3 years waiting for stuff to blow over but but 60-70 years?

Again, we have contemporary evidence from the civil war that historians can pull from. They didn't need to be there themselves because they have photos and writings from those who were. The Bible isn't even close to that.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Note: I am not a theologian or scholar. I am a simple layman. The below is a reflection of my own opinion, having studied this subject and engaged in several debates. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect any official position of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church cannot be held responsible or liable for any errors I might make. The below thesis is simply my own observation, but I believe there is truth to it.

MY ARGUMENT

I am a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. I do not wish to partake in this debate, because by doing so I would be stooping to your level and implying you have a case. You don't. Atheists do not even have the right or authority to even question the historical Christ. I just have a few words.

The rise of the "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) is a direct result of the errors of the Protestant theology of the 16th century. It was from liberal Protestantism that the "mythicist" theory begun.

By rejecting the authority and ontological existence and reality of the Orthodox Church, Protestantism reduced Christianity to a mere "philosophy," and Christ to just another sage or teacher. This was not intentional, but it was a direct result of their anti-Church stance.

The New Testament is one of the greatest proofs of Jesus, as is the existential and empirical reality of the Orthodox Church (which Christ founded). But Protestantism rejected the Church (which is the other greatest proof), and relegated Christ to nothing but the testimony of the New Testament. The New Testament AND the Orthodox Church, comprise the two wings of authority of authentic Christianity. It takes two wings to fly. Protestants rejected the other wing (the Church Christ founded), and thereby damaged Christian authority and the message of authentic Christianity. By rejecting the Church, they made Christianity (and Christ) susceptible to attack. The rejection of the Orthodox Church left Christianity with holes, open to attack.

The protestants were desperate to garner other "evidences" for Jesus, so they amassed a great deal of "extra-biblical" sources in corroboration with the New Testament (Roman sources, Gnostic, Patristic, Jewish, etc), in order to support the historical Jesus. But since they rejected the validity of the Orthodox Church, which Christ personally established, they were rejecting the greatest proof there is for His existence.

The Orthodox Church was founded by Christ. No historical person has ever founded such an institution; especially one that has lasted and survived through every conceivable onslaught for 2,000 years.

The scientific anthropic principle states that, in its initial conditions, the universe was fine-tuned for the existence and sustenance of life.

There is an anthropic truth with the Orthodox Church. It was fine-tuned by the God-Man (Christ) for the existence of spiritual life. The existence of our many millions of saints (which the west is generally ignorant of), is proof that the Church is a Divine institution. It sanctifies and deifies souls. The Orthodox Church maintains, to this day, direct apostolic (or bishop) succession that goes all the way back to Christ. There is an ancient "rule of faith" (regula fidei) that guarantees the truth about Christ and authentic Christianity. Irenaeus (he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John) states that this "regula fidei" is where correct doctrine (orthodoxy) and bishop succession (the laying on of hands) exists.

WE STILL HAVE THIS IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH TODAY

In Summary and Conclusion,

Protestantism rejected the actual Church that Christ personally founded.

The "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) came from liberal Protestantism.

By rejecting this Church, Protestantism demoted Christ (though not intentionally) to the level of other sages and teachers; robbing him of His special uniqueness, and making Him vulnerable to attack.

I would say the greatest proofs of Jesus Christ are:

1. The Orthodox Church which He personally founded.

2. Apostolic Succession and the rule of faith (regula fedei).

3. The anthropic spirituality (fine-tuning) within the Orthodox Church that has produced countless saints.

4. The New Testament documents.

5. All the other extra-biblical data.

6. The collective cultural memory and tradition that has been handed down of the original divine knowledge (this is also contained within the authority of the Orthodox Church, apostolic succession and the rule of faith).

The fifth is not what we base the historical Christ on. It is simply what we would expect to find.

The fallacy of the modern "mythicists" and Protestants is that they approached this subject using the inductive method of historical investigation. They investigated this subject backwards. They used the New Testament and the extra-biblical material as if those things alone comprise the totality of the evidence for Christ. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IS THE GREATEST PROOF

CHURCH FATHERS

There are about 500 volumes of writings and teachings of the Church Fathers in Armenian, Coptic and Syriac. Here are the primary (not secondary) source material in Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, Greek and Latin. If you want to learn and hear what true Christianity is from the best sources, learn these languages and read this material in the original languages.

The Code of Justinian, edited in Berlin in the Corpus Iuris Civilis, as well as certain supplemental laws known in Latin as Novellae

English: Anti-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (38 volumes)

INTRODUCTION TO CHURCH HISTORY

The Christian Tradition (five volumes), by Jaroslav Pelikan (recipient of the John Kluge Award and 42 honorary doctorates. Considered the worlds leading expert on Christian history).

There are many what are called "Jesus historians" today who affirm Jesus existed. In fact, no one who is a recognized "Jesus historian"today denies He existed. I have a list and several quotes and sources by them. But they are really insignificant compared to the Church Fathers. None of these "Jesus historians" have the real authority the Church Fathers have. Read the Church Fathers.

Don't read modern day atheists who are 2,000 years too late and have no authority. Read Saints Maxmus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, Theodore the Studite, John Chrystotom, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, etc. Read Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus (Aganist Heresies). These holy men had direct mystical contact with the risen Christ.

I guess Thomas Jefferson had no authority either and he equated the birth and death of Jesus to being in the same category as Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter. If you have never heard that quote, google it, I am not going to do your homework for you.

YOU are why I don't argue the actual person existing, because to me it is tottaly irrelevent.

HOCUS POCUS does not exist, and for the same reason Harry Potter cannot literally fly around on a broomstick, there is no such thing as "godsperm" knocking up Mary and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis after 3 days.

Just like a Muslim trying to prove Allah picks the sex of the baby when we damned sure know that it is the XY chromosome and not a fictional being.

We can go to the movies and watch Superman fly around NY City, but because NY actually exists, you are not stupid enough to believe a man can really fly like that.

Did it ever occur to you that Christianity merely came about because it simply was marketed by humans who wrote stories and they were simply successful at marketing those stories, no matter how false?

I could give a shit less if a man called Jesus existed, that is in dispute of course, but even if it were the case, magic is not real.

The earth is billions of years old, YOU LOSE

It takes a sperm and an egg to make a baby, YOU LOSE

There is no such thing as zombie gods YOU LOSE.

DO not blame us for the ineptitude of the 40 authors who took over 1,000 years to write a convoluted book about an authoritarian tyrant who will burn everyone, even for a mere disagreement.

You can claim till the cows come home that your alleged Jesus existed, I don't care. I cannot fart a Lamborgini out of my ass anymore than Jesus could magically turn blood into wine.

DO NOT blame us for the myths that ancient people wrote out of their own ignorance.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.